Right, but I suspect the parent implied that this could be a feature that many would seek out - basically the chemical equivalent of a vasectomy that can't be undone.
Some people, like me, really don't want kids. Taking control of it so that you're not relying on your partner is important as trust (that they haven't forgotten to use contraception or worse - deliberately not take it) isn't a rock-solid security policy. It's also not fair on females to be the only ones in charge of contraception for bare-skin sex.
Another thing I've learned is that far too many parents take the statement "I don't want kids" as a personal challenge to moralize and condescend to people without children.
Na, I think it has more to do with either projecting ones own wishes onto somebody else or maybe even talk somebody down so that you can feel better if you don't are completely happy with the current situation.
I find it much more interesting to ask why somebody wants no kids. That gives much more insight into the person's mind than when you try to persuade them with your own experiences and produces much better followup talk opportunities.
Anyway, I'm curious what you think it might be evolutionary advantageous. On the face of it, if others have less kids, that would seem advantageous to your own kids.
What, aside from never making any decisions (which is a itself a kind of decision), can you do other than trying to make the best decision you can right now?
The honest to goodness answer here is that you can let other people make decisions for you, and it is the desire to make decisions for other people that prompts this argument.
Why? Having the means to do so is very very different from forcing it upon someone. Means to kill someone else are readily available to everyone -- kitchen knives, over the counter drugs -- but simply their availability isn't that scary.
What were they giving to the patients? Was the existence of what they were giving to those patients a scary thing just for existing - coz that's the question here.
You haven't responded to any of my points, just ignored them.
What you're really trying to do is make out that somehow sterilisation is a special case of something with a potential negative use case, where if they can easily be used, they will be, without arguing why it's different from all the other things that meet that criteria.
Not at all. It's similar to Google and the "right to be forgotten". In the old days something might be public knowledge but would say require visiting a records office to uncover. People could move on from things they regretted. Now it's just a search away. Aha, people say, but the knowledge was ALWAYS public. In practice the ease of doing it makes it completely different.
Which, again, is an argument about it being very easy to do.
That does not address jamesrcole's argument. He's not saying "it was always possible, therefore being easier is no different".
He's pointing out that there are worse bad things that are just as easy to do, yet they aren't considered scary.
You can't make an argument that the ease matters, because he's asking about things that are equally easy if not easier. Why is easy availability of such a drug different from easy availability of the knife/car/etc.?
It's a value judgement of course. As a society we accept that n deaths/year are worth it for the benefits that cars and butter knives bring to the wider population. In very recent history, sterilisation techniques have been massively abused by governments in an organised way. There was never a large-scale, systematic programme of running people over as policy. Forced sterilisation is still a thing in India...
Not really, tens of millions would line up for it; it'd be vastly better than surgery and plenty of pills can kill people now but we deal with that just fine and death is much scarier than sterilization. What you're doing there... it's called fear mongering. If you're really scared of something like that, you probably have some issues you need to resolve because that's a silly thing to be afraid of.
